Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2025
An In Vivo Estrogen Deficiency Mouse Model for Screening Exogenous Estrogen Treatments of Cardiovascular Dysfunction After Menopause
Published on: August 13, 2019
Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause : An Evidence Map
Kristen E Ullman1, Susan Diem2, Mary L Forte3
1Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota (K.E.U., C.S., N.Z., M.A., A.L., N.G.).
Background:
Women seeking nonhormonal interventions for vulvovaginal, urinary, and sexual symptoms associated with genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) may seek out complementary and alternative medicine or therapies (CAMs).
Purpose:
To summarize published evidence of CAMs for GSM.
Data Sources:
Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception through 11 December 2023.
Study Selection:
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) 8 weeks or more in duration that evaluated the effectiveness or harms of CAMs for postmenopausal women with GSM and reported 1 or more outcomes of interest, with sample sizes of 20 or more participants randomly assigned per group.
Data Extraction:
Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second.
Data Synthesis:
An evidence map approach was used to organize and describe trials. Studies were organized by type of intervention, with narrative summaries for population, study characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. Fifty-seven trials were identified that investigated 39 unique interventions. Studies were typically small (n < 200), and most were done in Iran (k = 24) or other parts of Asia (k = 9). Few trials evaluated similar combinations of populations, interventions, comparators, or outcomes. Most studies (k = 44) examined natural products (that is, herbal or botanical supplements and vitamins), whereas fewer reported on mind and body practices (k = 6) or educational programs (k = 7). Most studies reported 1 or 2 GSM symptoms, mainly sexual (k = 44) or vulvovaginal (k = 30). Tools used to measure outcomes varied widely. Most trials reported on adverse events (k = 33).
Limitations:
Only English-language studies were used. Effect estimates, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence were not assessed.
Conclusion:
There is a large and heterogeneous literature of CAM interventions for GSM. Trials were small, and few were done in North America. Standardized population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes reporting in future RCTs are needed.
Primary Funding Source:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (PROSPERO: CRD42023400684).
